Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Acim]

I wasn't responding to you.

Welcome to the open forums. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Jainarayan]

I consider marriage to be a divine institution given to Man by God.

You do realize that atheist heterosexual couples are married, right? Without a state-issued license no marriage is valid. Clergy are permitted to sign marriage licenses as a nod to tradition but they cannot validate a marriage without a license. So it would seem that God actually takes a back seat where marriage is concerned.

 

[Acim]

I am claiming that it has nothing to do with worthiness.

In my silly example, the Secret Service would not be ejecting based on my worthiness, but because I am not authorized or qualified to be in the White House.

I think you're playing semantics here. Or tell me what you mean by not qualified, nor authorized. It's still discrimination.

If marriage is only to be between a man and a woman (as I believe) then I cannot recognize "same-sex marriage."

Due to your discrimination (following from your if statement).

 

[columbus]

You do realize that atheist heterosexual couples are married, right? Without a state-issued license no marriage is valid. Clergy are permitted to sign marriage licenses as a nod to tradition but they cannot validate a marriage without a license. So it would seem that God actually takes a back seat where marriage is concerned.

There is a flip side to this, rare as may be.
My friend Paul is quad. It literally cost thousands of dollars a month to keep his medical needs met. He met a girl, blah blah....
Well she got along ok on her little business but she didn't have a few extra thousands a month. If they got legally married her income would have been deducted from his benefits.
So the local Catholic Church married them in a religious ceremony that didn't include the State of Indiana. It worked for them, their friends and family, and nobody else cared.
It was a bit of a to do. I think the mayor was there.
Legal marriage and community marriage are two different things.
Tom

 

[Acim]

God commanded the first husband and wife to be one flesh and to multiply and fill the Earth.

Since there has been to rescinding of said commandment, I do not see any reason to assume that they are not still in force today or that God would command no one to marry.

I've never heard of this idea that we are all married to each other, but if I take it at face value I would have to reject it because it conflicts with what I already have come to believe.

Because we are technically all married to each other, it would be odd for God (or anyone) to think we can not be married, or to issue such a commandment. It only makes sense if sticking strictly to the physical understanding, and downplaying/ignoring the spiritual one. Yet, if sticking strictly to the physical, and having inability to work that out, I would think until it is worked out, it is fair for no one to be married (physically). Perhaps then, believers could reconnect with the Divine, rather than maintain focus only on the physical, or illusion of marriage. Which I would think is part of the reason why Paul suggested, to Christians, do not marry. Yet, did say if one was going to burn with passion, then better to marry. One would think Christians would rather homosexuals marry, than burn with passion (remain promiscuous), and stay divided in their devotion to time with God and time with physical pursuits/relationships.

 

[sayak83]

My belief is that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The definition had to be changed in order to accommodate same-sex couples. I don't believe that is right.

The issuance of anything else, like a civil union, could have conferred all those duties and privileges. No one needed to go dabbling into an institution that many millions of people believe to be of divine origin.

The divine union is an issue that is completely separate from legal, jurisdictional and property rights and responsibilities that a state marriage contract brings. So how is the State interfering with the Christian "church marriage before God" when its marriage contracts has absolutely nothing to do with whether some divine sanction exists or not?
Secondly marriage is not a Christian religion only concept but exists in all religions and cultures, each religion and worldview bringing its own distinctive understanding of what marriage implies. So, once again, how can you demand that the State enshrines into law only the Christian theological understanding of marriage if you do not believe in theocracy? You seem to believe somehow that sensibilities of marriage that emerges from civilizations dominated by Abrahamic religions must be nationally recognized as the legal marriage no matter what the Dharmic, Daoist, Confucian, secular humanist and native traditions (say) in Africa or American Indians believe. Why would non-Christians and non-Muslims find such assumptions acceptable? Provide a reason.

 

[columbus]

Because we are technically all married to each other,

Columbus Tom and @Prestor John look at each other suspiciously.
"EW!", they cry in unison.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

A privately owned business should not be forced to hire a person.

Uh... yes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Jainarayan]

The issuance of anything else, like a civil union, could have conferred all those duties and privileges.

Not unless every state and government entity recognized civil unions. And they didn't.

 

[Jainarayan]

There is a flip side to this, rare as may be.
My friend Paul is quad. It literally cost thousands of dollars a month to keep his medical needs met. He met a girl, blah blah....
Well she got along ok on her little business but she didn't have a few extra thousands a month. If they got legally married her income would have been deducted from his benefits.
So the local Catholic Church married them in a religious ceremony that didn't include the State of Indiana. It worked for them, their friends and family, and nobody else cared.
It was a bit of a to do. I think the mayor was there.
Legal marriage and community marriage are two different things.
Tom

That really is rare. It seems to me that is the sort of thing that works for those who do put their faith first. But they understood the difference and accepted it.

 

[Acim]

My belief is that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The definition had to be changed in order to accommodate same-sex couples. I don't believe that is right.

What is marriage, but union? You are saying union, by definition, can only occur between two people of opposite gender. Hence why the physical interpretation is, if being super duper kind, a short sighted view of what God can or does join. You said earlier that you think before we were here on earth, we were spirits only (my interpretation of what you claimed). You think we were not unified, by God in that state? And you think here in the physical, we are now not joined in Spirit? That God's Will has somehow been undone by mere existence of physical/appearances?

The issuance of anything else, like a civil union, could have conferred all those duties and privileges. No one needed to go dabbling into an institution that many millions of people believe to be of divine origin.

I'm thinking the dabbling occurred when the physical was seen as preceding or paramount to the spiritual understanding of marriage. Again, what God has joined together, let no man tear asunder (separate). Spiritual fact is, it can't be undone. But given the will of this world, it appears like it has been undone. Appearances can be deceiving.

On the spiritual tip, there's disagreement among the esoterics and the traditionalist, and outside of that, the disagreement stems from a discrimination that is not only changing the (actual) original (that precedes the physical), but is saying one form of union ought to be good enough, but treated as inferior to the other form of union. As if "form of union" is something our Father would've loved to support among us brothers and sisters. But if one form of union is seen as sufficient for homosexuals, then why not make it the same one for all people? Or if somehow that isn't workable, then no physical unions until we can work out something that is received by all as fair compromise. Perhaps the male-female one could tolerate the civil union variety and the same-sex one gets the other union. Let's try that for awhile and see if the male-female couple think that seems altogether fair and good for long term considerations.

 

[Acim]

The divine union is an issue that is completely separate from legal,

While I don't disagree there's a distinction, I would say if they really are completely separate, then the legal one isn't actually union. Which is kind of what I am saying in my other posts. Hence why discerning Christians ought to have little issue with it. Just realize the State is asking for the illusion of union to be upheld and move on. Perhaps even have wedding cakes that read, "Congratulations on your illusion of marriage. We are so happy for you!"

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, and then you said that selling a cupcake to someone would violate your freedom of religion.

I'm not being silly. I am very serious.

You

are being silly by claiming that selling a cupcake to someone would violate your freedom of religion.

Thanks for confirming you still do not understand the subject.

Not just silly, but nonsensical, bigoted and condescending.

If anyone is bigoted , it is you. Evidently your vocabulary does not include "bigotry."

 

[omega2xx]

I see. So there is no source.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-ci...

I was not allowed to access this site, but If you want to know, maybe you can.

 

[Jainarayan]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-ci...

I was not allowed to access this site, but If you want to know, maybe you can.

Doesn't work. If the facility receives funding or assistance from any public source they cannot discriminate on religious grounds.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Whoa. Hold on there. I never said that homosexuals were not being discriminated against. Of course they are.

I only said that denying them marriage would not be discrimination.

And you'd be wrong. Denying them marriage is both a breach of the First Amendment and a removal of rights & legal protections the Fourteenth Amendment (obviously I'm strictly talking about American law here) says they are entitled to. And yes, you've made plain you're talking about marriage in a religious context, but you can't just ignore the legal one because it's inconvenient. The legal aspect is an important one for marriage and the Supreme Court decided that religious beliefs are not sufficient justification for restricting legal rights & protections.

If I say you shouldn't be allowed to marry because you and your spouse refused to say your vows before Zeus & Hera then that would be advocating for discrimination against you.

 

[columbus]

https://www.lifesitenews.com/.../judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-ci...

I was not allowed to access this site, but If you want to know, maybe you can.

I wasn't allowed access either.
So what's the point?
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

Not unless every state and government entity recognized civil unions. And they didn't.

Well, it was technically legal to kill a "Mormon" in Missouri up until 1975.

But, rather than change the definition of what a "Mormon" was, it made more sense to change that State law.

Perhaps this could apply to this situation as well?

 

[Prestor John]

What is marriage, but union? You are saying union, by definition, can only occur between two people of opposite gender.

I believe that marriage is a covenant between husband, wife and God.

Men and women were created differently. They were designed to complement as well as struggle against one another.

The purpose of marriage is to find your eternal mate. The person with whom you will progress with, both complementing and struggling against the other, until the perfect day. This perfection is not obtainable in this life, but can be accomplished in the next.

This is why our Father wants all of His worthy sons and daughters to find their eternal mates and be sealed one to another for all time and eternity, so their marital status will extend beyond the grave.

Not only can you eventually enjoy perfection with your mate, but also the joy of your posterity, raising up righteous seed to honor and glorify God the Father.

You can consider the ideal husband and wife as two sides to the same coin. Their union in heart, mind and spirit will develop into perfection for both parts and they will be one.

Same-sex couples have not been authorized by God because they frustrate His plans for His children as well as stunts their potential. Members of a same-sex couple cannot obtain perfection nor can they have seed. At death the members of the same-sex couple will be separate. Their relationship will be terminated. Their case will be miserable.

That is why I believe it is important to not blur the lines of what marriage is. There are no double sided coins in the Father's Kingdom.

Hence why the physical interpretation is, if being super duper kind, a short sighted view of what God can or does join.

There are purposes for everything God does. And everything He does is mandated by Law.

It is the Law of the Universe that only opposing genders can be joined in a marriage covenant, because they have the potential to become perfect and to have seed.

You said earlier that you think before we were here on earth, we were spirits only (my interpretation of what you claimed). You think we were not unified, by God in that state?

I believe that we entered into a covenant, as the spiritual family of God, to love and respect one another and help everyone return to the Father after the completion of this mortal test.

We can only enter into a marriage covenant here in mortality. There were no marriages before this life and there will be no new marriages after this life.

And you think here in the physical, we are now not joined in Spirit? That God's Will has somehow been undone by mere existence of physical/appearances?

We can all partake of the Holy Spirit, but that is not the same as the marriage covenant.

The Father's Kingdom is a kingdom of law and order. We are not all married one to another nor should we engage in behaviors that God deems only appropriate between married couples.

I'm thinking the dabbling occurred when the physical was seen as preceding or paramount to the spiritual understanding of marriage.

I believe that they are one and the same. One of the mains purposes of this life is to find your eternal mate.

Again, what God has joined together, let no man tear asunder (separate).

Yes, "what God has joined" meaning what He has authorized. What He has commanded. Just because a same-sex couple "thinks" they are married in God's eyes does not make it so. He does not honor any contract or obligation in the next life that is not sealed by His Holy Spirit in this life.

Spiritual fact is, it can't be undone. But given the will of this world, it appears like it has been undone. Appearances can be deceiving.

Only those unions that God has authorized. Not just any union that men come up with.

On the spiritual tip, there's disagreement among the esoterics and the traditionalist, and outside of that, the disagreement stems from a discrimination that is not only changing the (actual) original (that precedes the physical), but is saying one form of union ought to be good enough, but treated as inferior to the other form of union. As if "form of union" is something our Father would've loved to support among us brothers and sisters. But if one form of union is seen as sufficient for homosexuals, then why not make it the same one for all people? Or if somehow that isn't workable, then no physical unions until we can work out something that is received by all as fair compromise. Perhaps the male-female one could tolerate the civil union variety and the same-sex one gets the other union. Let's try that for awhile and see if the male-female couple think that seems altogether fair and good for long term considerations.

I believe that there are absolutes in the universe. Light will always banish darkness. Marriage will always be only between a man and a woman.

 

[Prestor John]

If anyone is bigoted , it is you. Evidently your vocabulary does not include "bigotry."

I was commenting on what you had said. It is not my fault that you went off topic.

You believe it is alright to refuse to sell a cupcake to someone because of their sexual preference. That makes you the bigot.